Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 12, 2017 | 讬状讚 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Metzia 108

One needs to leave an area near the bank of the river bare so that the sailors who need to pull the boats have a place to stand and pull. 聽A story is brought about a rabbi who refused to cut his trees down. 聽Although he was jsutified in his argument, another rabbi came by without checking properly into the details and had them cut down. 聽Various cases are brought where one may be wrong for doing something; however by law he can’t be forced to undo it. 聽In the context of this, the gemara discusses the laws of bar metzra – one has the right to buy his neighbor’s property and even buy it from the purchaser once it was sold. 聽In which cases do those laws not apply?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪讬住转讙讬 诇讛讜

and if not, they will be unable to walk, but will have to cross over to the other side of the river. Therefore, no advantage exists to cutting down the trees that block part of the river.

专讘讛 讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讜讛 拽讗 讗讝讬诇 讘讗专讘讗 讞讝讗 讛讛讜讗 讗讘讗 讚拽讗讬 讗讙讜讚讗 讚谞讛专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚诪讗谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讜讬讚 讛砖专讬诐 讜讛住讙谞讬诐 讛讬转讛 讘诪注诇 讛讝讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 拽讜爪讜 拽讜爪讜

The Gemara cites a related incident: Rabba bar Rav Na岣an was going on a boat and saw a certain forest that was located right on the riverbank, as its trees had not been cut down to make room for the pullers. He said to those who were with him: To whom does this forest belong? They said to him: It belongs to Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rabba bar Rav Na岣an said: This is reminiscent of the verse: 鈥淎nd the hand of the princes and the rulers has been first in this faithlessness鈥 (Ezra 9:2), because a renowned scholar is acting improperly. Rabba bar Rav Na岣an said to them: Cut down, cut down to clear a path.

讗转讗 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚拽讬讬抓 讗诪专 诪讗谉 拽爪讬讬讛 转拽讜抓 注谞驻讬讛 讗诪专讬 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 讗拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 讝专注讗 诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉

Rabba bar Rav Huna arrived and found that his forest had been cut down. Since he was within his rights not to cut down his trees, as explained above, he grew angry and pronounced a curse: He who cut down this forest should have his branches cut down. The Sages said: Although he was unaware of the identity of the perpetrator, the Sage鈥檚 curse was nevertheless fulfilled, and consequently all the remaining years that Rabba bar Rav Huna was alive, the seed of Rabba bar Rav Na岣an did not last, as his children, his branches, died in his lifetime.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻诇 诇讗讬讙诇讬 讙驻讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬转诪讬 讗讘诇 专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘谞谉 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 诇讻专讬讗 讚驻转讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讘谞谉

Rav Yehuda says: All participate in the payment for the construction of the city wall, and this sum is collected even from orphans, but not from the Torah scholars. What is the reason for this? The Torah scholars do not require protection, as the merit of their Torah study protects them from harm. By contrast, money is collected for the digging of a river or a well for drinking water, even from the Torah scholars.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 谞驻拽讗 讘讗讜讻诇讜讝讗 讗讘诇 诇讗讜讻诇讜讝讗 诇讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 诪讬驻拽 讘讗讜讻诇讜讝讗 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara adds: And we said this halakha only if the town inhabitants do not go out in a crowd to perform the work themselves but pay workers to act on their behalf. But if they go out in a crowd, Torah scholars do not have to join them, as Torah scholars are not among those who go out in a crowd to perform work in public view.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讻专讬讗 讚谞讛专讗 转转讗讬 诪住讬讬注讬 注讬诇讗讬 注讬诇讗讬 诇讗 诪住讬讬注讬 转转讗讬 讜讞讬诇讜驻讗 讘诪讬讗 讚诪讬讟专讗

Rav Yehuda says: With regard to the digging of a river, i.e., the periodic deepening of a riverbed to prevent it from blocking up, the lower ones, i.e., those who live by the bottom of the river, must assist the upper ones in digging it and fixing it, as those located at the bottom of the river stand to gain from any work performed down to their houses. But the upper ones do not need to assist the lower ones, as the reverse is not the case. And the opposite is true with regard to the digging of a ditch to remove rainwater. In that case, those who live higher up are interested in the operation and therefore must help the lower ones, but the latter need not aid the higher ones in doing so in the upper area.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讞诪砖 讙谞讜转 讛诪住转驻拽讜转 诪讬诐 诪诪注讬谉 讗讞讚 讜谞转拽诇拽诇 讛诪注讬讬谉 讻讜诇诐 诪转拽谞讜转 注诐 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 谞诪爪讗转 讛转讞转讜谞讛 诪转拽谞转 注诐 讻讜诇谉 讜诪转拽谞转 诇注爪诪讛 讜讻谉 讞诪砖 讞爪专讜转 砖讛讬讜 诪拽诇讞讜转 诪讬诐 诇讘讬讘 讗讞讚 讜谞转拽诇拽诇 讛讘讬讘 讻讜诇谉 诪转拽谞讜转 注诐 讛转讞转讜谞讛 谞诪爪讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 诪转拽谞转 注诐 讻讜诇谉 讜诪转拽谞转 诇注爪诪讛

The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: If there were five gardens that draw their water requirements from one spring and the spring became damaged, all must help fix it with the owner of the upper garden, near whose garden the damage occurred. As a result of this ruling, the owner of the lower garden fixes it with all of them in the above case, and fixes it for himself if the damage occurred in the lower area. And similarly, if there were five courtyards that would run off water into a single sewer and the sewer became damaged, all must help fix it with the owner of the lower courtyard, near whose courtyard the damage occurred. The result is that the owner of the upper courtyard fixes the sewer with all of them and fixes it for himself if the damage affected his courtyard alone. This is in accordance with Rav Yehuda鈥檚 ruling.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讞讝讬拽 讘专拽转讗 讚谞讛专讗 讞爪讬驻讗 讛讜讬 住诇讜拽讬 诇讗 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 讻转讘讬 驻专住讗讬 拽谞讬 诇讱 注讚 诪诇讬 爪讜讗专讬 住讜住讬讗 诪讬讗 住诇讜拽讬 谞诪讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Shmuel says: One who takes possession of an open space left along a riverbank for the purpose of loading and unloading in order to plow and plant there during the time that it is temporarily unused is impudent. As for removing him, we do not remove him, as this piece of land is considered ownerless. And nowadays, when the Persians write to one who acquires land alongside a river: Acquire for yourself the field up to the portion of the river itself where the water reaches a horse鈥檚 neck, we even go as far as to remove him from the plot of land, as it belongs to the owner of the field.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讞讝讬拽 讘讬谞讬 讗讞讬 讜讘讬谞讬 砖讜转驻讬 讞爪讬驻讗 讛讜讬 住诇讜拽讬 诇讗 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 谞诪讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 诇讗 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: One who takes possession of land that is located between the land of brothers or between the land of partners and causes them trouble is impudent. As for removing him, we do not remove him, as they have no real claim against him. And Rav Na岣an said: We even go as far as to remove him, as one should not do anything that harms another. And if the complaint against him is due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, as they owned fields bordering on this one, we do not remove him.

谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜注砖讬转 讛讬砖专 讜讛讟讜讘 讘注讬谞讬 讛壮

The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: Even if his claim was due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, we still remove him, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:18). One should not perform an action that is not right and good, even if he is legally entitled to do so.

讗转讗 讗讬诪诇讬讱 讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讝讬诇 讗讬讝讘讜谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讝讘讜谉 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛

With the above halakhot in mind, the Gemara asks: If the stranger came to consult with one of the owners of the fields, and said to him: Shall I go and acquire the field, and the latter said to him, go and acquire it, as I will raise no objection, is it necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him to solidify the agreement? Or perhaps his mere promise is sufficient and it is not necessary? Ravina said: It is not necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him, while the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: It is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that it is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him.

讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬讬拽讜专 讜讝讜诇 讘专砖讜转讬讛

The Gemara adds: Now that you have said that it is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with the neighbor for the right to purchase the field, if he did not perform an act of acquisition with him and purchased the field, and the field increased or decreased in value, the price fluctuation occurs in the domain of the owner of the bordering field. The buyer鈥檚 purchase is considered a purchase on behalf of the neighbor, who then reimburses the buyer.

讝讘谉 讘诪讗讛 讜砖讜讬 诪讗转谉 讞讝讬谞讗 讗讬 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 拽讗 诪讜讝讬诇讗 讜诪讝讘讬谉 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗讛 讜砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗转谉 讜砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛

Accordingly, if this buyer bought it for one hundred dinars and the field was worth two hundred dinars, in order to determine how much money the neighbor must give him, we determine why the owner sold the field to the buyer at this price: If he sells to everyone at that cheap price, the neighbor gives the buyer one hundred dinars and takes it, as the neighbor could have bought it for this sum himself. But if the owner does not sell to everyone at this price and this buyer was given a discount, the neighbor gives the buyer two hundred dinars, the market value of the field, and takes it.

讝讘谉 讘诪讗转谉 讜砖讜讬讗 诪讗讛 住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇转拽讜谞讬 砖讚专转讬讱 讜诇讗 诇注讜讜转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬谉 讗讜谞讗讛 诇拽专拽注讜转

In the converse case, if he bought it for two hundred dinars and the field was worth one hundred dinars, the Sages understood that the neighbor can say to the buyer: I sent you to act for my benefit, but not to act to my detriment. Since the field will not remain in your possession, you are effectively my agent, and I am not prepared to pay more than its market value due to your mistake. Mar the Elder, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: This is what the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say in the name of Rav Na岣an: There is no exploitation with regard to real estate, as land has no fixed value, and therefore it cannot be said that the buyer overpaid, and he is given whatever sum he spent.

讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讙专讬讜讗 讚讗专注讗 讘诪讬爪注讗 谞讻住讬讛 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 注讬讚讬转 讛讬讗 讗讬 讝讬讘讜专讬转 讛讬讗 讝讘讬谞讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬

The Gemara discusses a related case: If one sold to another a beit se鈥檃 of land in the middle of his property so that the buyer is surrounded on all sides by the seller鈥檚 fields, we see what type of land it is: Whether the land is superior-quality land or whether it is inferior-quality land, his sale is a valid sale, as it is a distinctive piece of land. In that case, the seller鈥檚 neighbors cannot object, as their fields do not actually border on this plot.

讜讗讬 诇讗 讗讬注专讜诪讬 拽讗 诪注专讬诐

But if this field is not of any distinct quality, he is certainly trying to employ an artifice. His plan is to then purchase another plot of land from this owner, one that does border on the field of a neighbor. By first buying the plot in the middle, he is trying to establish himself as a neighbor so that the other neighbors will not have the first right of purchase relative to him. Therefore, the neighbors may prevent him from buying the second plot of land.

诪转谞讛 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讗讬 讻转讘 诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

The Gemara continues to discuss the halakha of one whose field borders that of his neighbor. With regard to a gift, it is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, as one can give a gift to whomever he chooses. Ameimar said: If he wrote a property guarantee to the recipient of the gift that if the field is seized for payment of a debt of the giver the giver of the gift will compensate the recipient for his loss, it is subject to the halakha of one whose field borders of the field of his neighbor. In that case the supposed gift has the appearance of a sale, so the neighbor can force the recipient to sell the plot to him.

诪讻专 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗讞讚 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 诇讘注诇讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讝讘谉 诪谞讻专讬 讜讝讘讬谉 诇谞讻专讬 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

If a seller sold all his property to a single person, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, as the seller is not required to leave out one particular field if the buyer is acquiring all his property. Similarly, if the seller sold it back to the previous owners, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. If a buyer bought a field from a gentile or a seller sold a field to a gentile, this purchase or sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor.

讝讘谉 诪谞讻专讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗专讬 讗讘专讞讬 诇讱 诪诪爪专讗 讝讘讬谉 诇谞讻专讬 谞讻专讬 讜讚讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讜注砖讬转 讛讬砖专 讜讛讟讜讘 讛讜讗 砖诪讜转讬 讜讚讗讬 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注讚 讚诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 讻诇 讗讜谞住讬 讚讗转讬 诇讬讛 诪讞诪转讬讛

The Gemara clarifies this ruling: If a buyer bought the field from a gentile it does not apply, as he can say to the neighbor: It is better for you that I bought the field, as I have chased away a lion for you from the border; since the neighbor certainly prefers having a Jewish neighbor to having a gentile neighbor. If a seller sold a field to a gentile, the gentile is certainly not bound by the command of: 鈥淎nd you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:18). The gentile is therefore under no obligation to refrain from purchasing this land. Nevertheless, we certainly excommunicate the one who sold it to the gentile until he accepts upon himself responsibility for all damage resulting from accidents that might befall the neighbor on the gentile鈥檚 account.

诪砖讻谞转讗 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬 住讘讬 讚诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讚砖讻讜谞讛 讙讘讬讛 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

The Gemara continues: If he sold a field previously given as a mortgage to the one to whom it was mortgaged, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, as Rav Ashi said: The elders of the town of Mata Me岣sya said to me: What is the meaning of the word mortgage [mashkanta]? It means that it resides [shekhuna] with the one to whom it was mortgaged. The Gemara asks: What difference does it make what the word means? The Gemara answers: It is relevant with regard to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor in that the person to whom the field is mortgaged has more rights than bordering neighbors, as he lays claim to a measure of ownership over the land.

诇诪讻讜专 讘专讞讜拽 讜诇讙讗讜诇 讘拽专讜讘 讘专注 讜诇讙讗讜诇 讘讬驻讛 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

If one sought to sell a distant field and to redeem, i.e., purchase for himself, a close one, or if he sold a bad one to redeem a good one, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. Rather, he may sell his field whenever he has the opportunity.

诇讻专讙讗 讜诇诪讝讜谞讬 讜诇拽讘讜专讛 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讚讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讗 诇讻专讙讗 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讜诇拽讘讜专讛 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 讘诇讗 讗讻专讝转讗 诇讗砖讛 讜诇讬转诪讬 讜诇砖讜转驻讬 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

Likewise, if he sells his field to pay for necessities, such as for taxes, for his wife and daughters鈥 sustenance, or for the burial of one of his family members, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. This is because the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 said: For taxes, for sustenance, and for burial we sell a field without a proclamation, as such matters are pressing and urgent and should not be delayed out of consideration for the rights of a bordering neighbor. Similarly, if he sold the field to a woman, who does not usually chase after vendors, or to orphans, or to his partners, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor.

砖讻讬谞讬 讛注讬专 讜砖讻讬谞讬 砖讚讛 砖讻讬谞讬 讛注讬专 拽讜讚诪讬谉

If various individuals have equal rights to the field, such as both are bordering neighbors, but some of them are neighbors whose fields are adjacent to his on the side of the city, i.e., their fields are between the city and the field being sold; and others are neighbors whose fields are adjacent to his on the side of the field, i.e., their fields are between the field being sold and the area further from the city, the neighbors whose fields are adjacent to his on the side of the city receive precedence.

砖讻谉 讜转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 拽讜讚诐 拽专讜讘 讜转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 拽讜讚诐 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讻谉 讜拽专讜讘 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讟讜讘 砖讻谉 拽专讜讘 诪讗讞 专讞讜拽

If one is a regular neighbor and the other is a Torah scholar, the Torah scholar receives precedence. If one is a relative and the other is a Torah scholar, here too, the Torah scholar receives precedence. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a neighbor and a relative, what is the halakha? Which of them takes precedence? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from the following verse: 鈥淏etter a neighbor who is near than a brother who is far鈥 (Proverbs 27:10).

讛谞讬 讝讜讝讬 讟讘讬 讜讛谞讬 讝讜讝讬 转拽讜诇讬 诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讛谞讬 爪讬讬专讬 讜讛谞讬 砖专讬 诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

If two people sought to acquire a field, and these coins that the first produces for payment are good dinars, and those coins that the second uses are weighed dinars, which are preferable to the good dinars, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, as the owner can say he prefers the superior quality coins. If these coins were wrapped up and those were loose, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders on the field his neighbor, as he may sell his field to the one whose money is ready to be counted.

讗诪专 讗讬讝讬诇 讜讗讟专讞 讜讗讬讬转讬 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 谞讟专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 讝讜讝讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讙讘专讗 讚讗诪讬讚 讛讜讗 讚讗讝讬诇 讜诪讬讬转讬 讝讜讝讬 谞讟专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 谞讟专讬谞谉 诇讬讛

If the neighbor said: I will go and expend effort and bring money, we do not wait for him, despite his status as a bordering neighbor, if someone else is available who is prepared to pay immediately. If he said: I will go bring money, we see what his financial status is: If he is a person who is assessed as one who can go and bring money without delay, we wait for him, but if not, we do not wait for him.

讗专注讗 讚讞讚 讜讘转讬 讚讞讚 诪专讬 讗专注讗 诪注讻讘 讗诪专讬 讘转讬 诪专讬 讘转讬 诇讗 诪注讻讘 讗诪专讬 讚讗专注讗 讗专注讗 讚讞讚 讜讚讬拽诇讬 讚讞讚 诪专讬 讚讗专注讗 诪爪讬 诪注讻讘 讗诪专讬 讚拽诇讬 诪专讬 讚讬拽诇讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪注讻讘 讗诪专讬 讚讗专注讗

If the land belonged to one person and the houses on the land belonged to another one, the owner of the land prevents the owner of the houses from selling his houses to someone else, as he has the first right of purchase. By contrast, the owner of the houses does not prevent the owner of the land from selling his land, as one can change his place of residence with relative ease, so he is not considered tied to the land. Similarly, if the land belonged to one and its palm trees to another one, the owner of the land can prevent the owner of the palm trees from selling the trees to another, but the owner of the palm trees cannot prevent the owner of the land from selling his land to another.

讗专注讗 诇讘转讬 讜讗专注讗 诇讝专注讗 讬砖讜讘 注讚讬祝 讜诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

If two people wanted to purchase the land, but one desired the land for building houses and the other wished to purchase the land for planting, the settling of the land through construction of houses is preferable, and this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. Therefore, he may sell to the one who wants to build a house there, even if he is not a bordering neighbor and the other potential buyer is.

讗驻住讬拽 诪砖讜谞讬转讗 讗讜 专讬讻讘讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 讞讝讬谞讗 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讻谞讬住 讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转诇诐 讗讞讚 讗讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

If a jagged edge of rock or a row of palm trees served as a barrier between two bordering fields, we see whether any open space exists. If the owner of the adjacent field can insert even a single furrow there that comes into contact with the other field, this sale is subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. But if sufficient space for a furrow does not exist, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor.

讛谞讬 讗专讘注讛 讘谞讬 诪爪专谞讬 讚拽讚讬诐 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讝讘讬谉 讝讘讬谞讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬 讜讗讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讗转讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 驻诇讙讜 诇讛 讘拽专谞讝讬诇

In a case of those four bordering neighbors who surround a field that is for sale from all four sides, if one of them preceded the others and purchased it, his purchase is a valid purchase and the others cannot object. And if they all came simultaneously to purchase it, then they divide the plot of land, with two bisecting diagonal lines so that each receives a portion near his field.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Metzia 108

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Metzia 108

讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 诪讬住转讙讬 诇讛讜

and if not, they will be unable to walk, but will have to cross over to the other side of the river. Therefore, no advantage exists to cutting down the trees that block part of the river.

专讘讛 讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讜讛 拽讗 讗讝讬诇 讘讗专讘讗 讞讝讗 讛讛讜讗 讗讘讗 讚拽讗讬 讗讙讜讚讗 讚谞讛专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讚诪讗谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讜讬讚 讛砖专讬诐 讜讛住讙谞讬诐 讛讬转讛 讘诪注诇 讛讝讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 拽讜爪讜 拽讜爪讜

The Gemara cites a related incident: Rabba bar Rav Na岣an was going on a boat and saw a certain forest that was located right on the riverbank, as its trees had not been cut down to make room for the pullers. He said to those who were with him: To whom does this forest belong? They said to him: It belongs to Rabba bar Rav Huna. Rabba bar Rav Na岣an said: This is reminiscent of the verse: 鈥淎nd the hand of the princes and the rulers has been first in this faithlessness鈥 (Ezra 9:2), because a renowned scholar is acting improperly. Rabba bar Rav Na岣an said to them: Cut down, cut down to clear a path.

讗转讗 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚拽讬讬抓 讗诪专 诪讗谉 拽爪讬讬讛 转拽讜抓 注谞驻讬讛 讗诪专讬 讻讜诇讛讜 砖谞讬 讚专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 讗拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 讝专注讗 诇专讘讛 讘专 专讘 谞讞诪谉

Rabba bar Rav Huna arrived and found that his forest had been cut down. Since he was within his rights not to cut down his trees, as explained above, he grew angry and pronounced a curse: He who cut down this forest should have his branches cut down. The Sages said: Although he was unaware of the identity of the perpetrator, the Sage鈥檚 curse was nevertheless fulfilled, and consequently all the remaining years that Rabba bar Rav Huna was alive, the seed of Rabba bar Rav Na岣an did not last, as his children, his branches, died in his lifetime.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讻诇 诇讗讬讙诇讬 讙驻讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讬转诪讬 讗讘诇 专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 专讘谞谉 诇讗 爪专讬讻讬 谞讟讬专讜转讗 诇讻专讬讗 讚驻转讬讗 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪专讘谞谉

Rav Yehuda says: All participate in the payment for the construction of the city wall, and this sum is collected even from orphans, but not from the Torah scholars. What is the reason for this? The Torah scholars do not require protection, as the merit of their Torah study protects them from harm. By contrast, money is collected for the digging of a river or a well for drinking water, even from the Torah scholars.

讜诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚诇讗 谞驻拽讗 讘讗讜讻诇讜讝讗 讗讘诇 诇讗讜讻诇讜讝讗 诇讗 讚专讘谞谉 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 诪讬驻拽 讘讗讜讻诇讜讝讗 谞讬谞讛讜

The Gemara adds: And we said this halakha only if the town inhabitants do not go out in a crowd to perform the work themselves but pay workers to act on their behalf. But if they go out in a crowd, Torah scholars do not have to join them, as Torah scholars are not among those who go out in a crowd to perform work in public view.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讻专讬讗 讚谞讛专讗 转转讗讬 诪住讬讬注讬 注讬诇讗讬 注讬诇讗讬 诇讗 诪住讬讬注讬 转转讗讬 讜讞讬诇讜驻讗 讘诪讬讗 讚诪讬讟专讗

Rav Yehuda says: With regard to the digging of a river, i.e., the periodic deepening of a riverbed to prevent it from blocking up, the lower ones, i.e., those who live by the bottom of the river, must assist the upper ones in digging it and fixing it, as those located at the bottom of the river stand to gain from any work performed down to their houses. But the upper ones do not need to assist the lower ones, as the reverse is not the case. And the opposite is true with regard to the digging of a ditch to remove rainwater. In that case, those who live higher up are interested in the operation and therefore must help the lower ones, but the latter need not aid the higher ones in doing so in the upper area.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讞诪砖 讙谞讜转 讛诪住转驻拽讜转 诪讬诐 诪诪注讬谉 讗讞讚 讜谞转拽诇拽诇 讛诪注讬讬谉 讻讜诇诐 诪转拽谞讜转 注诐 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 谞诪爪讗转 讛转讞转讜谞讛 诪转拽谞转 注诐 讻讜诇谉 讜诪转拽谞转 诇注爪诪讛 讜讻谉 讞诪砖 讞爪专讜转 砖讛讬讜 诪拽诇讞讜转 诪讬诐 诇讘讬讘 讗讞讚 讜谞转拽诇拽诇 讛讘讬讘 讻讜诇谉 诪转拽谞讜转 注诐 讛转讞转讜谞讛 谞诪爪讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 诪转拽谞转 注诐 讻讜诇谉 讜诪转拽谞转 诇注爪诪讛

The Gemara comments: This is also taught in a baraita: If there were five gardens that draw their water requirements from one spring and the spring became damaged, all must help fix it with the owner of the upper garden, near whose garden the damage occurred. As a result of this ruling, the owner of the lower garden fixes it with all of them in the above case, and fixes it for himself if the damage occurred in the lower area. And similarly, if there were five courtyards that would run off water into a single sewer and the sewer became damaged, all must help fix it with the owner of the lower courtyard, near whose courtyard the damage occurred. The result is that the owner of the upper courtyard fixes the sewer with all of them and fixes it for himself if the damage affected his courtyard alone. This is in accordance with Rav Yehuda鈥檚 ruling.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讞讝讬拽 讘专拽转讗 讚谞讛专讗 讞爪讬驻讗 讛讜讬 住诇讜拽讬 诇讗 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚拽讗 讻转讘讬 驻专住讗讬 拽谞讬 诇讱 注讚 诪诇讬 爪讜讗专讬 住讜住讬讗 诪讬讗 住诇讜拽讬 谞诪讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Shmuel says: One who takes possession of an open space left along a riverbank for the purpose of loading and unloading in order to plow and plant there during the time that it is temporarily unused is impudent. As for removing him, we do not remove him, as this piece of land is considered ownerless. And nowadays, when the Persians write to one who acquires land alongside a river: Acquire for yourself the field up to the portion of the river itself where the water reaches a horse鈥檚 neck, we even go as far as to remove him from the plot of land, as it belongs to the owner of the field.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛讗讬 诪讗谉 讚讗讞讝讬拽 讘讬谞讬 讗讞讬 讜讘讬谞讬 砖讜转驻讬 讞爪讬驻讗 讛讜讬 住诇讜拽讬 诇讗 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 谞诪讬 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 讜讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 诇讗 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛

Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: One who takes possession of land that is located between the land of brothers or between the land of partners and causes them trouble is impudent. As for removing him, we do not remove him, as they have no real claim against him. And Rav Na岣an said: We even go as far as to remove him, as one should not do anything that harms another. And if the complaint against him is due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, as they owned fields bordering on this one, we do not remove him.

谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 诪住诇拽讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讜注砖讬转 讛讬砖专 讜讛讟讜讘 讘注讬谞讬 讛壮

The Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: Even if his claim was due to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, we still remove him, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:18). One should not perform an action that is not right and good, even if he is legally entitled to do so.

讗转讗 讗讬诪诇讬讱 讘讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬讝讬诇 讗讬讝讘讜谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 讝讬诇 讝讘讜谉 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 谞讛专讚注讬 讗诪专讬 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讛诇讻转讗 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛

With the above halakhot in mind, the Gemara asks: If the stranger came to consult with one of the owners of the fields, and said to him: Shall I go and acquire the field, and the latter said to him, go and acquire it, as I will raise no objection, is it necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him to solidify the agreement? Or perhaps his mere promise is sufficient and it is not necessary? Ravina said: It is not necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him, while the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say: It is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that it is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with him.

讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 爪专讬讱 诇诪讬拽谞讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬 诇讗 拽谞讜 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讬讬拽讜专 讜讝讜诇 讘专砖讜转讬讛

The Gemara adds: Now that you have said that it is necessary to perform an act of acquisition with the neighbor for the right to purchase the field, if he did not perform an act of acquisition with him and purchased the field, and the field increased or decreased in value, the price fluctuation occurs in the domain of the owner of the bordering field. The buyer鈥檚 purchase is considered a purchase on behalf of the neighbor, who then reimburses the buyer.

讝讘谉 讘诪讗讛 讜砖讜讬 诪讗转谉 讞讝讬谞讗 讗讬 诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 拽讗 诪讜讝讬诇讗 讜诪讝讘讬谉 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗讛 讜砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诪讗转谉 讜砖拽讬诇 诇讬讛

Accordingly, if this buyer bought it for one hundred dinars and the field was worth two hundred dinars, in order to determine how much money the neighbor must give him, we determine why the owner sold the field to the buyer at this price: If he sells to everyone at that cheap price, the neighbor gives the buyer one hundred dinars and takes it, as the neighbor could have bought it for this sum himself. But if the owner does not sell to everyone at this price and this buyer was given a discount, the neighbor gives the buyer two hundred dinars, the market value of the field, and takes it.

讝讘谉 讘诪讗转谉 讜砖讜讬讗 诪讗讛 住讘讜专 诪讬谞讛 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇转拽讜谞讬 砖讚专转讬讱 讜诇讗 诇注讜讜转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讬 诪砖讜诐 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗讬谉 讗讜谞讗讛 诇拽专拽注讜转

In the converse case, if he bought it for two hundred dinars and the field was worth one hundred dinars, the Sages understood that the neighbor can say to the buyer: I sent you to act for my benefit, but not to act to my detriment. Since the field will not remain in your possession, you are effectively my agent, and I am not prepared to pay more than its market value due to your mistake. Mar the Elder, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: This is what the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 say in the name of Rav Na岣an: There is no exploitation with regard to real estate, as land has no fixed value, and therefore it cannot be said that the buyer overpaid, and he is given whatever sum he spent.

讝讘讬谉 诇讬讛 讙专讬讜讗 讚讗专注讗 讘诪讬爪注讗 谞讻住讬讛 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 注讬讚讬转 讛讬讗 讗讬 讝讬讘讜专讬转 讛讬讗 讝讘讬谞讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬

The Gemara discusses a related case: If one sold to another a beit se鈥檃 of land in the middle of his property so that the buyer is surrounded on all sides by the seller鈥檚 fields, we see what type of land it is: Whether the land is superior-quality land or whether it is inferior-quality land, his sale is a valid sale, as it is a distinctive piece of land. In that case, the seller鈥檚 neighbors cannot object, as their fields do not actually border on this plot.

讜讗讬 诇讗 讗讬注专讜诪讬 拽讗 诪注专讬诐

But if this field is not of any distinct quality, he is certainly trying to employ an artifice. His plan is to then purchase another plot of land from this owner, one that does border on the field of a neighbor. By first buying the plot in the middle, he is trying to establish himself as a neighbor so that the other neighbors will not have the first right of purchase relative to him. Therefore, the neighbors may prevent him from buying the second plot of land.

诪转谞讛 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讗诪专 讗诪讬诪专 讗讬 讻转讘 诇讬讛 讗讞专讬讜转 讗讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

The Gemara continues to discuss the halakha of one whose field borders that of his neighbor. With regard to a gift, it is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, as one can give a gift to whomever he chooses. Ameimar said: If he wrote a property guarantee to the recipient of the gift that if the field is seized for payment of a debt of the giver the giver of the gift will compensate the recipient for his loss, it is subject to the halakha of one whose field borders of the field of his neighbor. In that case the supposed gift has the appearance of a sale, so the neighbor can force the recipient to sell the plot to him.

诪讻专 讻诇 谞讻住讬讜 诇讗讞讚 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 诇讘注诇讬诐 讛专讗砖讜谞讬诐 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讝讘谉 诪谞讻专讬 讜讝讘讬谉 诇谞讻专讬 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

If a seller sold all his property to a single person, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, as the seller is not required to leave out one particular field if the buyer is acquiring all his property. Similarly, if the seller sold it back to the previous owners, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. If a buyer bought a field from a gentile or a seller sold a field to a gentile, this purchase or sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor.

讝讘谉 诪谞讻专讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗专讬 讗讘专讞讬 诇讱 诪诪爪专讗 讝讘讬谉 诇谞讻专讬 谞讻专讬 讜讚讗讬 诇讗讜 讘专 讜注砖讬转 讛讬砖专 讜讛讟讜讘 讛讜讗 砖诪讜转讬 讜讚讗讬 诪砖诪转讬谞谉 诇讬讛 注讚 讚诪拽讘诇 注诇讬讛 讻诇 讗讜谞住讬 讚讗转讬 诇讬讛 诪讞诪转讬讛

The Gemara clarifies this ruling: If a buyer bought the field from a gentile it does not apply, as he can say to the neighbor: It is better for you that I bought the field, as I have chased away a lion for you from the border; since the neighbor certainly prefers having a Jewish neighbor to having a gentile neighbor. If a seller sold a field to a gentile, the gentile is certainly not bound by the command of: 鈥淎nd you shall do that which is right and good in the eyes of the Lord鈥 (Deuteronomy 6:18). The gentile is therefore under no obligation to refrain from purchasing this land. Nevertheless, we certainly excommunicate the one who sold it to the gentile until he accepts upon himself responsibility for all damage resulting from accidents that might befall the neighbor on the gentile鈥檚 account.

诪砖讻谞转讗 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬 住讘讬 讚诪转讗 诪讞住讬讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讻谞转讗 讚砖讻讜谞讛 讙讘讬讛 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 诇讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

The Gemara continues: If he sold a field previously given as a mortgage to the one to whom it was mortgaged, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, as Rav Ashi said: The elders of the town of Mata Me岣sya said to me: What is the meaning of the word mortgage [mashkanta]? It means that it resides [shekhuna] with the one to whom it was mortgaged. The Gemara asks: What difference does it make what the word means? The Gemara answers: It is relevant with regard to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor in that the person to whom the field is mortgaged has more rights than bordering neighbors, as he lays claim to a measure of ownership over the land.

诇诪讻讜专 讘专讞讜拽 讜诇讙讗讜诇 讘拽专讜讘 讘专注 讜诇讙讗讜诇 讘讬驻讛 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

If one sought to sell a distant field and to redeem, i.e., purchase for himself, a close one, or if he sold a bad one to redeem a good one, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. Rather, he may sell his field whenever he has the opportunity.

诇讻专讙讗 讜诇诪讝讜谞讬 讜诇拽讘讜专讛 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讚讗诪专讬 谞讛专讚注讗 诇讻专讙讗 诇诪讝讜谞讬 讜诇拽讘讜专讛 诪讝讘谞讬谞谉 讘诇讗 讗讻专讝转讗 诇讗砖讛 讜诇讬转诪讬 讜诇砖讜转驻讬 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

Likewise, if he sells his field to pay for necessities, such as for taxes, for his wife and daughters鈥 sustenance, or for the burial of one of his family members, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. This is because the Sages of Neharde鈥檃 said: For taxes, for sustenance, and for burial we sell a field without a proclamation, as such matters are pressing and urgent and should not be delayed out of consideration for the rights of a bordering neighbor. Similarly, if he sold the field to a woman, who does not usually chase after vendors, or to orphans, or to his partners, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor.

砖讻讬谞讬 讛注讬专 讜砖讻讬谞讬 砖讚讛 砖讻讬谞讬 讛注讬专 拽讜讚诪讬谉

If various individuals have equal rights to the field, such as both are bordering neighbors, but some of them are neighbors whose fields are adjacent to his on the side of the city, i.e., their fields are between the city and the field being sold; and others are neighbors whose fields are adjacent to his on the side of the field, i.e., their fields are between the field being sold and the area further from the city, the neighbors whose fields are adjacent to his on the side of the city receive precedence.

砖讻谉 讜转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 拽讜讚诐 拽专讜讘 讜转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 拽讜讚诐 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 砖讻谉 讜拽专讜讘 诪讗讬 转讗 砖诪注 讟讜讘 砖讻谉 拽专讜讘 诪讗讞 专讞讜拽

If one is a regular neighbor and the other is a Torah scholar, the Torah scholar receives precedence. If one is a relative and the other is a Torah scholar, here too, the Torah scholar receives precedence. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: With regard to a neighbor and a relative, what is the halakha? Which of them takes precedence? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer from the following verse: 鈥淏etter a neighbor who is near than a brother who is far鈥 (Proverbs 27:10).

讛谞讬 讝讜讝讬 讟讘讬 讜讛谞讬 讝讜讝讬 转拽讜诇讬 诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讛谞讬 爪讬讬专讬 讜讛谞讬 砖专讬 诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

If two people sought to acquire a field, and these coins that the first produces for payment are good dinars, and those coins that the second uses are weighed dinars, which are preferable to the good dinars, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor, as the owner can say he prefers the superior quality coins. If these coins were wrapped up and those were loose, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders on the field his neighbor, as he may sell his field to the one whose money is ready to be counted.

讗诪专 讗讬讝讬诇 讜讗讟专讞 讜讗讬讬转讬 讝讜讝讬 诇讗 谞讟专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讗诪专 讗讬讝讬诇 讗讬讬转讬 讝讜讝讬 讞讝讬谞谉 讗讬 讙讘专讗 讚讗诪讬讚 讛讜讗 讚讗讝讬诇 讜诪讬讬转讬 讝讜讝讬 谞讟专讬谞谉 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讗 谞讟专讬谞谉 诇讬讛

If the neighbor said: I will go and expend effort and bring money, we do not wait for him, despite his status as a bordering neighbor, if someone else is available who is prepared to pay immediately. If he said: I will go bring money, we see what his financial status is: If he is a person who is assessed as one who can go and bring money without delay, we wait for him, but if not, we do not wait for him.

讗专注讗 讚讞讚 讜讘转讬 讚讞讚 诪专讬 讗专注讗 诪注讻讘 讗诪专讬 讘转讬 诪专讬 讘转讬 诇讗 诪注讻讘 讗诪专讬 讚讗专注讗 讗专注讗 讚讞讚 讜讚讬拽诇讬 讚讞讚 诪专讬 讚讗专注讗 诪爪讬 诪注讻讘 讗诪专讬 讚拽诇讬 诪专讬 讚讬拽诇讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪注讻讘 讗诪专讬 讚讗专注讗

If the land belonged to one person and the houses on the land belonged to another one, the owner of the land prevents the owner of the houses from selling his houses to someone else, as he has the first right of purchase. By contrast, the owner of the houses does not prevent the owner of the land from selling his land, as one can change his place of residence with relative ease, so he is not considered tied to the land. Similarly, if the land belonged to one and its palm trees to another one, the owner of the land can prevent the owner of the palm trees from selling the trees to another, but the owner of the palm trees cannot prevent the owner of the land from selling his land to another.

讗专注讗 诇讘转讬 讜讗专注讗 诇讝专注讗 讬砖讜讘 注讚讬祝 讜诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

If two people wanted to purchase the land, but one desired the land for building houses and the other wished to purchase the land for planting, the settling of the land through construction of houses is preferable, and this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. Therefore, he may sell to the one who wants to build a house there, even if he is not a bordering neighbor and the other potential buyer is.

讗驻住讬拽 诪砖讜谞讬转讗 讗讜 专讬讻讘讗 讚讚讬拽诇讗 讞讝讬谞讗 讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讻谞讬住 讘讛 讗驻讬诇讜 转诇诐 讗讞讚 讗讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗 讜讗讬 诇讗 诇讬转 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 讚讬谞讗 讚讘专 诪爪专讗

If a jagged edge of rock or a row of palm trees served as a barrier between two bordering fields, we see whether any open space exists. If the owner of the adjacent field can insert even a single furrow there that comes into contact with the other field, this sale is subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor. But if sufficient space for a furrow does not exist, this sale is not subject to the halakha of one whose field borders the field of his neighbor.

讛谞讬 讗专讘注讛 讘谞讬 诪爪专谞讬 讚拽讚讬诐 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讝讘讬谉 讝讘讬谞讬讛 讝讘讬谞讬 讜讗讬 讻讜诇讛讜 讗转讜 讘讛讚讬 讛讚讚讬 驻诇讙讜 诇讛 讘拽专谞讝讬诇

In a case of those four bordering neighbors who surround a field that is for sale from all four sides, if one of them preceded the others and purchased it, his purchase is a valid purchase and the others cannot object. And if they all came simultaneously to purchase it, then they divide the plot of land, with two bisecting diagonal lines so that each receives a portion near his field.

Scroll To Top